What do you want CSM14 candidates to focus on regarding industry?

industrial
(Vert Moliko) #1

What do you most want CSM14 candidates to focus on regarding Industry? I thought it might be a good idea to try to put together a pledge card that allows CSM candidates to state whether or not they will push for progress regarding a particular niggle/issue in industrial/manuf game play.

As part of pulling toegther this list I’m soliciting for any ideas along these lines that people have as candidates for attention. Industrialists I spend time with (hey Horde-bros!) have continuously pointed out alliance contracting as a problem when it comes to seeding ships, so I have included it in the mockup pledge card in this… but any all ideas welcomed! I figure if we get as many candiate CSMs signed up to the pledge (or even just aware of our special needs (!)) that would be no bad thing.

Anways - any thoughts/suggestions appreciated!

(Tirin Turambar) #2

color coded markers i can put on buy or sell orders to flag them as needed. when you have so many its sometimes difficult to find what your looking for.

1 Like
(Cor'El Dahken) #3

Rework blueprint storage and industry window optimisation.

The loading times on the industry window are pretty dismal if you have a decent amount of blueprints, and are pretty much a joke if your business is BPCs.

I dont think anyone would complain about a possible option to stack BPCs of the same ME/TE/Runs either.

6 Likes
(darkestkhan Eriker) #4

It is good in both cases. Try a dozen or more alts running t2 rig manufacture … THAT is a load of bpcs…

(Steve Ronuken) #5

Unfortunately that’d likely be a major change to how the asset system works. So likely won’t happen. (You can only stack singleton objects. singleton objects have nothing extra other than a quantity. So you don’t get ME/TE/Runs.)

6 Likes
(Albert Spear) #6

As a solo indy toon, I want:

  1. a smaller structure for refining and manufacturing - limit the modules so that you can only do limited types of items, limit the module slots to just a couple and make it small.
  2. Better price graphs in game. Sometimes I need something that I don’t track out of game and it would be nice to be able to have a better view of the market history (e.g. buy/sell spread) to make decisions (buy/buidl) for the stuff I need on occasion
  3. A ship that is between the freighters and the other ships. I don’t need 1M M3 but I do need more than 50-100K M3 regularly. IT would be nice if it could have a tank.
  4. A mobile depot type of manufacturing facility - launch it - put a job in it and retrieve it when the job is done - while it is running you either have to hide it from others or guard it.
2 Likes
(Vert Moliko) #7

I have spammed this in a couple discords and people have also raised these:

  1. @Vert Moliko make it so that i can paint ‘Made by X’ on my ships. Manufacturer label somewhere.

  2. @Vert Moliko Not directly industry related, but making ctrl + c work in non-list mode (eg icons) and copy including info on copy/originals/me/te for blueprints

  3. Copy/paste list into contracts would be a nice QOL update for industry. WTB contracts are pretty tedious for large orders.

  4. One click to create a copy of a contract.

(elitatwo) #8

Sorry for the intrusion but such a thing can only be done to ships that are assembled. A freshly “baked” ship is just a generic placeholder until you assemble it.
Once assembled that ship get’s an “owner” and once you board the ship, your skills get applied to it.
What you want would kill our hamsters by increasing the values in the database by more than 10 fold.
Imagine this,
you make a Moa and that Moa you get of your manufacturing line is a static Moa with the basic level 0 trained attributes on her or database value ABC.
Someone else, somewhere else is about to finish a Moa manufacturing job of 10 Moas. Those Moas will be the same generic Moa with the basic level 0 attributes or 10x ABC.

If EVE went with your proposal, the database would have to define ABC1a for “your Moa” and ABC1b-10b for that second manufacturing job I mentioned for this example.

Now apply that same “label” to all Moa in the game and you get thousands of ABC1-infinity-a-infinity entries the database has to keep track of.

Good luck trying to have a 200 vs 200 fleet fight without 6000% tidy.

1 Like
(Mike Azariah) #9

I think the argument against is what Steve mentioned above, a ship is also a ‘singleton object’ and made by would heavily change that.

Cut and paste? totally fine with especially with large data contracts etc. But I am fairly sure some of it does work because I have used it in conjunction with eve appraisal. So perhaps you would have to explain exactly what is missing.

Look I won’t try to lie to you. Steve is the best gatekeeper for database type things. I would easily support that which makes sense and does not demand eve rewrite huge swathes of code. If this is truly of interest for you? Put Steve on the top of your ballot. (I would appreciate being #2 if you think of it)

m

4 Likes
(Vert Moliko) #10

Its cool, that one sparked off a bit of debate in the discord where it came up, pretty much a mirror of this response, but people like the idea. Someone also pointed out that something similar has been achieved in other games (?Ultima was mentioned).

I guess its in the League of Long Lead Wishes!

My aim is capture all these no matter how seemingly impossible.

(Vert Moliko) #11

In other places people have also mentioned :

  • lack of “compressibility” of gas in the same way there is ore compression available. Making it hard to move gas around. Possible solutions would be another specialist t1 hauler, compression of gas added to rorques, or sth like a mobile facility as Albert Spear mentions above.

  • Issue of “marooned” SP when a change is made and SP no longer have a use. Eg. “Outpost Construction” previously had good reasons to train (upgrades) but after citadel changes, only L1 is required to allow building, with advanced levels of the skill offering no advantage.

(Daoden) #12

The issue with compressing gas is unlike ore it is not refined but rather the raw ingredient. You would have to uncompress the gas to use it, not sure how well that would work mechanic wise.

(Abyrr Lemmont) #13

I want a way to run Indy with my 4 alts within my Corp/alliance without needing roles. I don’t want roles or to require them in order to Share a common hangar for BPOs/BPCs and minerals.

I want the UI in structure browser to tell us exactly what rigs are installed on a given structure.

Mobile device integration for managing jobs

For production that requires components, to have a multibuy interface that will pop up with all the required inputs.

1 Like
(Corraidhin Farsaidh) #14

You’d need a condenser/refrigeration unit to liquify/solidify the gas and keep it that way. Maybe a module to turn your ship into a fancy FLNG ship.

1 Like
(Circumstantial Evidence) #15

I think I have posted this in ‘little things’ years ago. Perhaps its a larger thing. What about adding code to fake a container, if I select a bunch of BPC’s and “stack?” The container would have the icon and name of each BPC type, with a new corner icon denoting that it’s a container. The container could hold nothing but BPC’s of that type.

This saves players of the hassle of sorting bpc’s into named containers, which can never have unique icons showing what’s inside, at a glance.

(Dunk Dinkle) #16

Howdy, I do a lot of industry and happen to be running for CSM. Here are a few of the Quality of Life issues that I’d bring up with CCP.

  • Industry search - When entering text in the search box, you can get results, when suddenly the search refreshes and you see all items again, requiring you to continue to enter more text for search to correct itself

  • Asset sharing between characters - The amount of contracting between characters who can’t use a shared corp hanger gets crazy. The possibility to use the ACL system to share hangers should be explored.

  • Engineering citadel bonus - It’s is difficult to see/know what bonuses a citadel provides. The industry window has a lateral way to see it, but it’s painful and difficult for new indy players.

As an industrialist, I’m someone that can understand your concerns and convey them to CCP.

2 Likes
(Jennifer Austin) #17

Steve some type of Industry core give to the Orca or something like that so I could press because finding compressing areas is ridiculously hard

(Steve Ronuken) #18

Unfortunately, so many of the things people would like, would require pretty significant changes to the asset system. which touches on so many other systems. (Oh, you’re changing how it works? Now go change how the industry system works, so it can interact with it. etc etc) :frowning:

Shared hangars are something which have been wanted for ages. I’d love to have them.

But it’s a bit more complex than might be thought. Hangars aren’t a location in game. it’s not that you have two different people in the same station having their stuff in different locationids. It’s the same location, but with ownership of the asset being a person or corporation. And then it gets split out into the different ‘hangars’ by a flag. This is why adding arbitrary hangars is more complex than thought too.

The asset table is something like:
asset id, location id (this is like your ship id, your head, a station, a container), owner id, flag, quantity, attributes (if it’s a singleton. this is where item unique info goes. like ME, damage, etc)

So hooking it up to an ACL is harder than might be thought. Not impossible, of course, but doing it in a way which doesn’t kill the database server would require a whole bunch of work.

2 Likes